Open Letter to Reconsider Vaccinating Kids 5-11


By concerned citizen, counselor, Leo Hee Khian, Voices of Wilderness  

<Click here to sign on the following Open Letter>  

Open Letter: Reconsider Risk-Benefit Analysis in Vaccinating 5-11 years old Indiscriminately

To: Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Chan Chun Sing,

Cc: PM Lee Hsien Loong and the Singapore Parliament

The plaque outside Singapore's Parliament House reads: "Singapore's parliamentary system has undergone refinements.. Some of these initiatives include the Presidential Council for Minority Rights to prevent discriminatory legislation.."

In recent months, discriminatory legislation have become a focal point in our Republic. In the name of public health, the Minister of Health has pushed new laws restricting the freedoms and rights of unvaccinated Singaporeans. In the name of protecting them, the government of Singapore has justified laws so draconian that it would destroy their employment opportunities, livelihood and freedoms.

This power exercised by the government of Singapore is not checked. There is no recourse for ordinary citizens who are affected. Many appeals and letters written to Minister Ong and his select experts appear to have fallen on deaf ears. I am not aware of any dialogues Minister Ong had arranged with concerned citizens. Instead, he and his select experts became our arbiters of truth, masters of our health and freewill. Some concerned citizens felt threatened with jail terms and fines.

Today, in my letter, I wish to urge you Minister Ong, to not usurp the rights and freedoms of the unvaccinated people of Singapore, and those who are suspected to be vaccine injured. Come, let us reason together! Your justification for pushing VDS measures to such draconian levels is not based on scientific evidence.

But the main point of my letter is intended to be about children.

Statistical data clearly points to the fact that the narrative "vaccination helps children", is built on thin ice.

I have done my part and documented stories of several suspected vaccine injured. They include several young persons in their 20s and two persons in their 30s. The stories of these suspected vaccine injured are consistent and the gaps of the Ministry of Health glaring: there are way too many abnormalities, way too little medical investigation. There's way too little concern (in my opinion) on the part of the government to understand, counsel, and mitigate the angry feelings and thoughts of medical negligence these victims have. There seems zero consideration on the part of MOH to pause, rethink and relook at the data again in light of these gaps.

Suffering victims expect a Health Minister - and Prime Minister - to truly care and be vexed by their unexpected woes, thus, take up responsibility over their plight. Instead, they have felt dismissed, threatened, and discriminated out of society. To them, further divisive policies lead them to conclude that the government's interest lie not in Singaporeans nor their elected duties to act on behalf of the people.

The collective concerns of the suspected vaccine injured are of public interest - they have not been sufficiently accounted for by the government.

These millennials I interviewed belong to an age group that would not have been threatened by Covid. Now, they have all lost their health and quality of life.

This same thing now looms over our children 5-11 years old.

Now I can understand the common accusations. I must be biased. Some will call me "anti-vaxxer", conspiracy theorist. To this I reply: run through my public profile, blog and Facebook timeline. If you could find an argument on this issue that is not reasoned with objective rationale, you can point it out to me. I can stand corrected. But it is presumptuous to assume one knows better without examining my arguments.

Moreover, what I determine to present here are solely data from the government. These are statistical info direct from the MOH and HSA. I am deliberately using official data to prove my point, so there can be no dispute that my sources are unscientific or untrustworthy. Numbers do not lie. My two sources - one from HSA and one from MOH - will show that there is contrary evidence that benefits outweigh risks in vaccinating our young.

A. Studying the risk of Adverse Events (AEs) following vaccination (HSA data)

Vaccinating children is not a zero sum game where vaccines carry zero risks. The first document I would cite is HSA's 6th safety update which provided data for suspected adverse events (AEs) up to 30 Sep 21.


HSA reported 12,589 suspected AEs (0.14%) following the mRNA vaccines. (For simplicity of argument I will not include analyses for the non-mRNA vaccines):

"A total of 9,209,201 doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty and Moderna/Spikevaxm RNA vaccines have been administered, out of which 12,589 suspected AE reports (0.14% of administered doses) were received. Of these, 581 reports (0.006% of administered doses) were classified as serious AEs." (Summary Pt 1; Pg 1)

Also, from the following chart HSA provided on these 12,589 suspected AEs, "injection site reactions" and "fever" - often taken to be the most typical side effects of vaccines - accounted for only a minority of 5.8% of reported AEs. The most commonly reported AE is "rash"; followed by "hives" and "angioedema (swelling of eyelids, face and lips)". These 3 adverse effects accounted for 69.1% of AEs. Chest tightness and palpitations accounted for a significant 8.1% (about 1000 cases) of AEs.

HSA did not categorise chest tightness and palpitation under the "serious AE" category. It is my understanding though that individuals who had experienced these conditions do not consider them to be mild side effects.

In my interviews with a number of suspected vaccine injured, I understand that not all report their AEs to HSA. It is fair to assume a significant percentage of AEs will not get captured in HSA's data. Let's label this missing number, "M".

HSA's data also does not seem to include "death" as a suspected AE. This is HSA's description of what a serious AE comprise:

"Serious AEs comprised 0.006% of doses administered. The most frequently reported serious AEs were anaphylaxis (77 reports) and other severe allergic reactions (52 reports). Other serious AEs include exacerbation of underlying asthma condition, breathing difficulty, fast heart rate, an increase or decrease in blood pressure, chest discomfort and pain, pericarditis or myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscles and the outer lining of the heart, respectively), syncope, limb numbness, weakness or pain, seizures (fits), nerve inflammation, muscle injury, joint pain, blood clots, low platelets, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), changes in vision, increase in liver enzymes, thyroid gland dysfunction, abnormal renal function, menstrual disorder, severe skin reactions and infections." (Pt 11; Pg.5)

However, HSA's counterparts in the US, UK and Europe have each reported at least thousands of deaths as AEs. While some of these deaths could be coincidences, I had argued that to completely disclaim every death on subjective basis would be another extreme. (;

An Adverse Event report that fails to take into account deaths following vaccination is not just insincere. It is irresponsible and contributes to mislead public health policy, and such misinformation can end up harming thousands of Singaporeans.

Therefore, I will not dismiss, but factor in this unknown number of deaths triggered by or contributed by the Covid vaccine, as "D". We must start tracking deaths.

To conclude, the risk of AEs for the general population is at 0.14%, but about "6%" of these AEs involved mild negligible symptoms of fever and reaction at injection site. However, "M" (missing AEs) and "D" (unrecorded deaths) have not been factored in. To better highlight key public health considerations, I would re-indicate the risk of AEs as 0.14*6%-M-D

Continue reading :